Patrick,

There is no such thing as a left-leaning 'Fascist'. Hitler was not a Fascist, he was a National Socialist and there is a big difference between Mussolini's doctrine of Fascism, and Hitler's doctrine of National Socialism. I can explain the difference to you, if you want, and I most likely will have to on this thread.

As far as Plaw's ridiculous attempts to demonize those with opposing views through association with Hitler, I hope they speak for themselves for what they are. I WISH America was anything close to National Socialist Germany from 1933-1939.

Gee... What was this topic about again?

Reduced to comparisons of Hitler and petty squabling. And then people wonder why so many people flew the coop...

I think it was about Supreme Court justice, and a logical discussion, before:

And a 14-point copy+paste that serves little other than to outline the lengths at which some members will go to try and besmirch others.

If this is logical debate, I am Hitler. Oh wait, according to Plaw, I am. Hypocritical, as the left often is, you condemn my use of Hitler in comparing Pat's ideology (which, like it or not, is a valid point), and then you turn around and do the same thing towards me.

Terrible at taking your own advice, aren't you?

Hrere's my final on the subject. I'll ignore the sarcastic drivel above:

What has really amazes me JJ, is that as soon as you took the debate from a debate to personal insults of the members, and someone tells you that you were out of line to do so, and, finally, replied in kind, you simply turned it up a notch.

I'd be very surprised if even the hard-core right wing members, if they were honest about it, would not agree that it was wrong to compare Patrick to Hitler.

While you obviously don't care, since you "drop the gloves" at times of your own choosing, just suffice it to say that when "dropping the gloves" constitutes the expression of thoughts and/or actions which are beyond the bounds of good taste and acceptability.....

Ah, what's the point? I suspect that you don't get it at all.

I'll just bear in mind that in future discussions
I don't leave myself open to the possibilty of your personal attacks or insults.

I never would have expected that from you. Sad.

And the final spin...

I don't feel comparing someone who believes "as many abortions as possible" to a murderer like Hitler isn't valid. It most certainly is. In this instance, both parties in question show little or no concern for the sanctity of human life. I was simply pointing that out.

This is America, jack. After all, I can say and think as I please. And on this message board, I'll do the same, until Geoff or SC tell me otherwise. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but I'm sure you'll learn how to deal.

Why don't you get off your bloody high horse and stop pretending to be some mediator of wisdom, eh? You compared me to Hitler (however facetiously), yet you choose to besmirch me because of the same thing? I'm disappointed in you, Plaw, to see the reality behind what Pat said, and why I replied in that manner.

But in the end, I could honestly care less. You've taken this thread father offtopic than I ever imagine it would go.

I look forward to "dropping the gloves," with you again. It will certainly be my pleasure.

The fires seem to be dying down a bit, but I still want to say something.

The leftists in this argument have accused JJ's conservative opinions about abortion of being motivated/clouded by his views on religion. As a conservative, I would just like to point out that I am STONE COLD Athiest and I am as far to the right on the issue of abortion as humanly possible. And before you accuse me of basing this argument soley on my own personal views and experiences, I'll just say that I am not the only one who's views contradict the stereotypical "Religious Right-Winger." I know many who are against abortion and are very un-religious. I also know many extremely religious liberals who are "Pro Choice."

That being said I will just say this...

While I am a conservative I admit fully that I am nowhere near as sharp on the issues as many of our political argument veterans here on the BB. I also admit that lately I have not been even slightly avid in keeping up to date with current affairs. But if there is one world issue that I do have some shread of knowledge and passion on... it is abortion.

For the last two years of my highschool career, I have profusely studied, written about, and argued the "Pro-life" and "Pro-Choice" arguments. In my 11th grade Participation In Government Class, I chose my debate presentation to be on abortion. I worked on it for two and a half months. In my 12th grade College Freshman English class my Final Exam research paper was titled "Abortion: A social injustice." I can say with full confidence that I know as much about this issue as anyone here.

So listen to me not as a Republican, or Conservative, or "Right Winger," but as a human being. I have come to one certain conclusion, and that is that abortion is morraly wrong and inhumane. I truly and passionately believe this, and its not because I forced myself to believe this as to coincide with the rest of my political beliefs. If there is anything in this world I am sure of, its this. And I am not degrading the opinions and beliefs of the "Pro Choice" believers. I recognize many of your points and justifications, and I can see why this is such a "Hot" and arguable topic. But I know in my heart of hearts that Abortion is horribly wrong, and I am confident that its practice in the last several years will be seen as a blemish on the human race in many years to come.

I could go on in detail and describe the scientific, social, and moral reasons that have instilled my belief so deeply, but I am afraid I dont have as much stamina as Plaw and JJ. I wont comment on this thread any further.

To quote my former civics teacher in high school:

"Yes you do have the freedom of speech. You also have the freedom to act stupid as well".

Some people on this board choose to exercise that quite freely.

---

Excellent statement, RB. I didn't know that was like a final project type thing for you? In high school, I think my final "thesis" (if you could call it that at high school level) was on the JFK assassination for my history classes, the legality of file sharing for my government class, and the debate between the Euro and the Pound for Britian for international relations. Nothing quite so fiery as yours, though.

This debate started because I expressed a fear that, with the president's chances of appointing two new justices to the US Supreme Court, the new court might decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. And JJ and Patrick then got on their high horses and turned into a debate on fascism, the use of marijuana, abortion as birth control, and, I believe, the use of Tylenol to get hight.

And, no, JJ, I don't promote the murder of my grandchildren. And, no, my daughter is not sexually active. And, yes, I take my responsibilities as a mother quite seriously and do speak to her frankly about the dangers of sexual activity, because if you're sexually active, getting pregnant is only one of the risks you run.

However, when males in this society decide to step up to the plate and accept their responsibility as fathers, then maybe abortion won't be necessary. I noticed that in your response to my post, you did not once mention the father's share of the burden.

Also, if you think that I would allow my daughter to carry the product of a rape, no matter how innocent that child is, you are out of your mind. Again, it shows how a woman's feelings are completely disregarded in any of this, and that only the progeny is thought of.

May I ask in these various scenarios that you quoted, where is the father? I don't think I need to quote to you all of the statistics on dead-beat dads, etc., but, as I stated earlier, until men in this society are willing to shoulder their share of responsibility in parenting, then Roe v. Wade should stay firmly in place.

Amen, Sicilian Babe. It seems that in debates like this, all the attention is on the female. What people sometimes fail to realize (to my sheer amazement), is that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child. Too often, when a young guy finds out he "knocked up" his girlfriend, he runs off and avoids the responsibility.

I don't believe in abortion, I think its evil. However, seeing as I'm religious, I won't judge a woman who does it. It's her choice. If a woman is in a position where she'll die if she has this baby, then I feel abortion is acceptable. Double J, are you honestly saying that the mother should not have that choice in a situation such as this? And don't give me the "That child has done nothing to deserve this fate! It deserves to live!" And the mother doesn't? I agree, there are too many instances that some chick just goes out and has sex, completely oblivious to the repurcussions, only to get knocked up. She figures "Hey, there's a clinic, I'll just get an abortion, and go out and have some more sex!"

Double J, reading your posts, I see that you are also a religious person. So you believe in a God, right? Well, with that said, who the hell are you to judge anybody? God is the only one qualified to make judgments on people. God is judge, jury, and executioner. This is not a personal attack against you, Double J, but I'm saying in general, as a religious person, it's a sin to judge people. You, me, or anybody.

This thread has degenerated into an embarassing mess. I've said my piece, I'm done with this thread. SB, it's unfortunate that your thread has turned into this, but as you know, it seems everything around this God-forsaken GD board has to turn political and personal. It's a shame, really...

Feel free to go back to previous threads on the topic, I don't leave the male unaccountable...

Are you truly confident in this? Many parents in today's society either are complacent or blissfully ignorant when it comes to the social behavior of their children. I'm not accusing you of either; I'm just saying that it is too often a policy of, "it won't be my kid."

Because so far it's been talk of "women's rights," not parental rights. It's been "the woman has a choice," despite the fact that half of the genetic material comprising that child belongs to the father, who has just as much right to decide what happens to that child.

Explain to me why you feel that it is fair that a wholly innocent, sentient being is killed simply because of it's origins. Please. Then we can validate whether I am out of my mind, as you say.

So because of deadbeat Dads, we need abortions? I find that logic to be rather feminist, at best. In a world where women have fought so hard to become equals, where a woman doesn't need a man to survive, the blame falls wholly upon the father when it is convenient?

Don't misunderstand me, anyone who does not support his children (not just monetarily, either) is an asshole. I'm not advocating this in the least, and I'm certainly not negating the hardship endured by unplanned pregnancies. However, it appears to me that we are paying more attention the semantics and technicalities of who-did-what, and who's fault, when it reality, murder is being committed without any remorse.

I don't dispute this point. But I think there are also cases (I can think of two in my high school when I was attending a few years ago) where someone became pregnant, and didn't tell the father (or potential fathers) and had an abortion performed. Isn't this just as irresponsible? The father has just as much right to that child's well being as does the mother.

If we were talking about the fate of a convicted rapist, would standing him in front of a firing squad be considered a logical "choice?" No. Would lynching? No. Yet, in reality, "choice," the rationalized word that it is (in this case) is synonymous with the murder of an innocent, sentient being, who had rights.

You're telling me that it would be God's will to allow murder of his children to be perpetrated? I don't believe that. I'm not judging anyone. I'm simply doing my best to argue the point that infanticide is wrong; I hardly believe the God of Abraham, or Jesus Christ, would condone it.

It is a sin to allow people to continue to practice legal murders every year in a country where the rights of the individual, and personal liberties, are supposed to be unalienable. Yet, in the case of the unborn, they are ignored, often for convenience. The pro-life movement is their voice.

And argument that I've always brought up before is this - why is it a double homicide if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman? If the "child," or "fetus," dies, it is considered to be a victim of homicide. Or when a pregnant woman is murdered, again, double murder. But an abortion, where a child either has it's life chemically poisoned and extinguished or it is ripped from the birth canal and is physically destroyed, is not murder? Explain the logic in that. If it's "unwanted," it's simply an "abortion" of a nonperson. But if a pregnant woman and/or her baby dies in a car crash, or is murdered, it's a legitimate crime.

Regards,
Double-J

Whose thread? Last time I checked, I originally began a thread discussing the retirement of SPJ Sandra Day O'Connor.

Whose thread? Last time I checked, I originally began a thread discussing the retirement of SPJ Sandra Day O'Connor. [/b][/quote]Sorry about that DJ, that's my mistake.

Yes DoubleJ, back to the thread you created.....

Who will Bush name as his nominee to the court?

Some say Attorney General Gonzalez, but who knows.

So ya, can we please stop with sillyness over the piss fighting between you know who and that other you know who?

Whose thread? Last time I checked, I originally began a thread discussing the retirement of SPJ Sandra Day O'Connor. [/b][/quote]Sorry about that DJ, that's my mistake. [/b][/quote]You see what happens? My poor thread. Look what they did to my boy. I don't want his mother to see him like this.

So may I assume that you're against the death penalty, then?

At last.....something that we can agree upon.

That was good. Very good.

I really wanted to respond to JJ's post. No, JJ, my daughter is NOT sexually active. I am not "blisfully ignorant". I look at life through very clear glasses, and am not deluding myself in the least. I remember what being a teenager was like, so I know what it is like to experience the throes of first love/passion. However, I know for a fact that she is not yet sexually active. I must say that I resent the implication.

As for why I would not want my daughter or any other female to carry the product of rape, you obviously have no clue as to the physical and psychological ramifications of being the victim of such a crime. It is devastating, in every possible way. And for you to suggest that the "origins" of the child have no bearing, then you truly don't understand the physical and mental torture that a woman experiences at the hands of a rapist.

As for calling my logic feminist , thank you very much!!

Hmmmm....I don't usually like "feminists". :p

I guess I'll have to make an exception in your case.

Sure, Adolf. My pleasure.

Next time, though, fight your own battles please.

Look how you got me in trouble with my pal Double J, and how he ripped me to shreds when I criticized him for comparing you to Hitler.

To all men [ ] in regard to women's choice: As the famous saying goes, if you want the job doen; do it yourself. :p

if more men did that there would be less abortions.


oh you know that was good!

And the reason is that they'd start learning responsibility. Now this is better. :p

I think you missed the meaning of my post lol

Then we're even, because you missed mine.

sb, i agree with you 99.9% of the time. i only have on exception to tell you about and it hits very close to home and i feel very strongly about it, so if i rub you the wrong way and make it seem like i'm arguing with you, i don't mean it as such. i think you are mostly correct and your post was with good intentions.

my older brother got a girl pregnant about 5 years ago. they weren't married, it was a dumbshit thing to do on his part, he knew it at the time and he knows it now. he is certainly not 100% innocent. i don't know whether abortion was ever considered by her or not, but either way she had the baby. this girl evidently had some of the same hobbies as some of the people on this board because once she had the baby she wanted absolutely nothing to do with the child, but my brother did, so they consentually agreed that my brother would take it. everything seemed alright. then, 2 years ago, after three years of having absolutely nothing to do with the child, this woman comes back and demands custody. well who do you think ended up getting the baby? of course the mother did. she can go be a drug addict and fuck every drug dealer in the world when she wants to, but as soon as she feels the need, she can come back and take my niece away without any repercussions. so i don't really feel all that sorry for every single mother because even though a great majority of the time the father is the deadbeat, he does so by his own accord and is held accountable by possible loss of custody, parental right, etc. but the mother isn't held to these same standards. now i don't know anything about abortion, i wasn't even around for roe v. wade. i was just a little sperm floating around inside my father. it really doesn't matter to me one way or another how people live their life as long as it doesn' interfere with the lives of others, so i guess that makes me more pro-choice than pro-life. like i said, sb, i don't mean to direct this at you, because for every story like mine, there's a million more about a father who ran away. but maybe more fathers would stick around in the picture if they knew that they would be allowed to have as many rights as the mother. i guess the moral of the story is to just keep your dick in your pants until you've found your one true love.

This is the wise decision. It is ironic that those who stick with morals when it comes to abortion, consider having sex out of wedlock to be okay.

In any case, mother should have more rights, after all, she is the one who is having the child.

so you don't see anything wrong when someone can leave for three years, do absolutely nothing to care for the child, then just show up and take the baby away? is that all men are is sperm donors? just get me pregnant, then get the hell out of my life because i had the baby not you? wow. i guess now i understand why a man could leave something as precious as his child, if that's the scenario he's faced with.

I see it wrong when they are having a baby out of wedlock without considering the future of baby and with no responsibility. All wrong doings afterward is the result of their first mistake. The only victim in the middle is the child.

i agree with you whole-heartedly on that point, but i just don't see why one parent should be favored over the other then. i know that the woman has the baby, so she has to completely carry the burden for 9 months if she isn't married. my brother carried that burden for three years. i don't see how 9 months outweighs three years.

The fact is, once you had the baby, this connection is going to hunt you forever. I don't know your brother or that woman and I don't know what the situation might have been, but I don't see as the biological mother why she can't have the baby for the same amount of time or having a joint custody even after three years.